{"title":"Healthcare Justice: Protecting Self-Respect, Not Opportunity.","authors":"R Ameresekere","doi":"10.1007/s11673-025-10432-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Why is healthcare \"special\" to the extent that it should be distributed more equally than other social goods, as a matter of justice? Norman Daniels claims that healthcare is special because it protects the normal range of opportunities available to us, and therefore can be subsumed under a principle of justice which establishes that opportunity ought to be equally distributed. I argue that subsuming healthcare under such a principle leads to de facto discrimination against certain people in virtue of their healthcare needs. This is because-as a critical discussion of health and healthcare needs importantly illustrates-much of the healthcare that people need simply cannot or does not protect normal species function and therefore does not protect opportunity. And so, such healthcare needs go unfairly unmet on Daniels' view. Instead, I suggest that we ought to subsume healthcare under a principle of equally distributing the social bases of self-respect. Though the healthcare that many of us need cannot protect opportunity, it can still protect our sense of self-respect; as such, those who need such care are entitled to it as a matter of justice on the self-respect view. The self-respect view thus avoids de facto discrimination and ultimately meets healthcare needs more fairly. And because it does so by eschewing a controversial conception of health and healthcare, instead appealing to a conception that appears freestanding with respect to the doctrines that citizens might reasonably disagree about, it better satisfies the requirements of public justification.</p>","PeriodicalId":50252,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-025-10432-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Why is healthcare "special" to the extent that it should be distributed more equally than other social goods, as a matter of justice? Norman Daniels claims that healthcare is special because it protects the normal range of opportunities available to us, and therefore can be subsumed under a principle of justice which establishes that opportunity ought to be equally distributed. I argue that subsuming healthcare under such a principle leads to de facto discrimination against certain people in virtue of their healthcare needs. This is because-as a critical discussion of health and healthcare needs importantly illustrates-much of the healthcare that people need simply cannot or does not protect normal species function and therefore does not protect opportunity. And so, such healthcare needs go unfairly unmet on Daniels' view. Instead, I suggest that we ought to subsume healthcare under a principle of equally distributing the social bases of self-respect. Though the healthcare that many of us need cannot protect opportunity, it can still protect our sense of self-respect; as such, those who need such care are entitled to it as a matter of justice on the self-respect view. The self-respect view thus avoids de facto discrimination and ultimately meets healthcare needs more fairly. And because it does so by eschewing a controversial conception of health and healthcare, instead appealing to a conception that appears freestanding with respect to the doctrines that citizens might reasonably disagree about, it better satisfies the requirements of public justification.
期刊介绍:
The JBI welcomes both reports of empirical research and articles that increase theoretical understanding of medicine and health care, the health professions and the biological sciences. The JBI is also open to critical reflections on medicine and conventional bioethics, the nature of health, illness and disability, the sources of ethics, the nature of ethical communities, and possible implications of new developments in science and technology for social and cultural life and human identity. We welcome contributions from perspectives that are less commonly published in existing journals in the field and reports of empirical research studies using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies.
The JBI accepts contributions from authors working in or across disciplines including – but not limited to – the following:
-philosophy-
bioethics-
economics-
social theory-
law-
public health and epidemiology-
anthropology-
psychology-
feminism-
gay and lesbian studies-
linguistics and discourse analysis-
cultural studies-
disability studies-
history-
literature and literary studies-
environmental sciences-
theology and religious studies